Migration for Housing: Urban Families in Rural Living
By:
Sherri Lawson Clark, Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University/Duke University
June 2008
Executive Summary
This study examined the movement of low-income families from urban areas to rural Pennsylvania to find
available, affordable quality housing. The year-long ethnographic study involved interviews with: migrant
families to understand why they moved and what their perceptions of their new community were; long-term
community members to examine their perceptions of community change; and local government/community
organization representatives to ascertain what, if any, changes to social services were being attributed to lowincome families migrating to the area.
A key finding from the study showed that, contrary to much of the migration literature, respondents did not
relocate for labor opportunities. In this study, families migrated out of urban centers and into rural areas for
housing opportunities.
Introduction
Pennsylvania ranked 48th nationwide in population
growth in the 1990s; despite its slow growth, data show a
94 percent increase in the number of non-whites moving
into rural counties between 1990 and 2000 (http://
www.ruralpa.org/about.html#3). What these statistics hint
at is a slowly growing trend occurring in some rural
Pennsylvania counties of low-income urban individuals
and families moving to rural communities in search of
housing and other affordable services. Fitchen (1991)
documented this trend more than a decade ago when she
noted that, in rural communities closer to metropolitan
areas, local agencies reported a significant increase in
low-income people moving in from urban areas. Fitchen
argued that the high housing costs in urban areas coupled
with the surplus small-town rural housing stock was a
good propeller of urban poor to the countryside.
Throughout the United States, rural counties are
increasingly becoming home to correctional facilities,
halfway houses, and drug treatment centers that shelter
individuals from local neighborhoods as well as more
distant communities. Upon release from these facilities,
individuals may choose to remain in the area; and
subsequently, seek services from local organizations.
While the numbers of urban individuals entering
Pennsylvania rural counties have not been documented
due, in part, to the difficulty in tracking through traditional census data collection methods, the effects of urban
individuals and families moving into rural Pennsylvania communities may have major consequences for the
state’s economic and social institutions. At issue, too, is
the role that race and ethnicity play in the racially
homogeneous rural Pennsylvania counties that are
experiencing increased levels of minorities seeking
improved living conditions.
This research project began after observations of the
above patterns were revealed in an on-going study –
The Family Life Project (FLP).1 Preliminary findings
from the Pennsylvania FLP ethnographic data showed
that low-income individuals and families who were
migrating to three research counties were driven by
public housing availability and the prison economy.
In 2004, a community ethnographer from the FLP was
1
The FLP, funded by the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, was a five-year study conducted by researchers
at Penn State and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The goal of the project, which began in 2002, was to understand the
development of young children by following them from infancy
through their first three years of life. The study was comprised of five
projects conducted by 23 investigators who represented more than 10
disciplines. The study funded by the Center falls under the ethnographic portion of the FLP, which was comprised of two components:
a family ethnography consisting of 37 families and a community
ethnography of community characteristics hypothesized to affect
families’ and children’s lives across the three Pennsylvania counties of
Huntingdon, Blair and Cambria.
This project was sponsored by a grant from the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, a
legislative agency of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania is a bipartisan, bicameral legislative agency
that serves as a resource for rural policy within the Pennsylvania General Assembly. It was created in 1987 under Act 16, the Rural Revitalization Act, to promote
and sustain the vitality of Pennsylvania’s rural and small communities.
Information contained in this report does not necessarily reflect the views of individual board members or the Center for Rural
Pennsylvania. For more information, contact the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, 200 North Third St., Suite 600, Harrisburg, PA
17101, phone (717) 787-9555, fax (717) 772-3587, email: [email protected].
Ethnographic Reseach
Ethnographic research is designed to explore and help explain the reasons individuals choose to relocate, where
they relocate, how long they stay, what resources they need or what social ties they build. Findings from ethnographic studies are best used when combined with larger quantitative data that determine how the uniqueness of the
present economic and social contexts shape individual choices. By understanding how these macro- and microlevel forces are integrated, state and local governments will be better able to adopt policy measures that take into
account the needs of newcomers and long-term residents, budgets of social service providers, and the impact of
such forces on statewide institutions.
invited to attend the Special Housing Needs Task Force
meeting that was formed by a group of social service
providers, community developers and local officials in
Blair County. The group was organized to address how the
county should respond to the increasing numbers of poor
families moving into the county. One major area of
concern addressed at the task force meeting was a charge
that private developers were advertising the availability of
low-income “Section 82” housing in Blair County in large
metropolitan areas.3 In one instance, a task force member
stated that approximately 80 low-income families moved
to a small Blair County community to take advantage of
the Section 8 housing opportunities. He said that the
impact on the community was immediately felt by the
school district, which provided alternative education
programs for 13 children from these families. By taking
action, the group felt it could best address these concerns
in the interests of all those involved.
This research allowed a small team of researchers from
the FLP to explore these findings more systematically in
the three rural counties of Huntingdon, Blair and
Cambria, where the FLP data were collected.
The research, conducted in 2005, was an ethnographic
study that explored the lived experiences of 15 families
that chose to leave high poverty urban neighborhoods
and move into a central Pennsylvania rural county. Over
seven months of intensive, semi-structured monthly
interviews and observations, the project elicited factors
that respondents say contributed to their mobility, and the
processes of relocation that included how respondents
discovered information, obtained services, built upon
opportunities and reacted to challenges.
To understand how agencies and local long-term
residents responded to demographic shifts occurring in
these communities, the researchers attended meetings and
interviewed organization officials and residents who had
spent their lifetimes in the area and lived in the same
neighborhood as the migrant families participating in the
study.
There is a lack of systematic research that examines the
processes by which individuals or families come into rural
Pennsylvania counties from large cities via the lowincome housing industry, what services they seek, how
long they stay or what social ties they develop within
communities. Further, studies have not addressed the
impact of these demographic shifts on community cohesion
and quality/quantity of services rendered to the poor.
Summary of Related Research
The fact that low-income urban dwellers are moving to
poor rural communities for reasons other than employment opportunities have been examined in the literature
but to a very limited degree (Jobes, 2000; Maynard,
Kelsey, et al., 1997; Fitchen, 1995 and 1994; and Larson,
1994). These researchers cite affordable rental housing,
the portability of welfare benefits and the better overall
quality of life as primary reasons for relocation. To
achieve a better quality of life, more low-income urban
dwellers are opting to leave the city in favor of the
amenities they believe a small town has to offer. Nadel
and Sagawa (2002) describe seven myths and realities
about rural America that many respondents in the project
study came to realize over time, including their preconceived notions of cleaner and safer environments, decreased drug use, and better health care. Soon after
arriving, though, many notified other family members and
friends back in the city of origin of their newfound, if
only brief, happiness. Migrations such as these have reshaped our nation’s rural communities from a mostly
homogeneous society to one that is progressively becoming more diverse (Housing Assistance Council, 2004;
Barcus, 2002; and Brown and Deavers, 1989). In response
to this trend, local service agencies struggle to support the
2
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Section 8 needs of both new and long-term residents. Fitchen (1995)
argues that the migration of poor people to depressed
Program is now called the Housing Choice Vouchers Program. The
program is the federal government’s major program for assisting very
rural communities redistributes poverty to those areas and
low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, further concentrates it there. Further, new migrants from
and sanitary housing in the private market. In this report, the program
urban centers bring with them lived experiences that may
will be referred to as Section 8.
be at odds with local residents. Jobes (2000) argues that
3
During the meeting, the director of the housing authority stated that
many long term residents in small rural towns fear that
the housing authority does not advertise to the public and, to his
population expansion will result in a faster-paced,
knowledge, he had not heard about these allegations. Nonetheless, the
task force said they were aware of one local developer who did advertise
impersonal lifestyle common in most cities. As a conseSection 8 outside the county.
2
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania
quence, competition for resources and conflicts arise
between new migrants and those whose families have
resided in local communities for generations.
Other aspects to consider are who is moving into
communities and where they are moving. It makes a
difference to local economies that poor urban minorities
are choosing to relocate to poor, mostly white, rural
communities. That is, local governments want to attract
individuals who bring in resources (in the form of higher
taxable and more discretionary incomes, for example) as
opposed to those who will require specialized services
(such as public housing, Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families, and Medicaid). Two of the study’s three counties
(Blair and Cambria) have experienced net population
losses between 1990 and 2000.4 Researchers have
attributed population losses in rural America, in part, to
brain drain, where college-educated and highly skilled
individuals leave for better opportunities in more metropolitan settings (Nord and Cromartie, 1999; and Hertzog
and Pittman, 1995). For example, Nord and Cromartie
(2000) argue that during the 1990s migration trends in the
rural South were mostly beneficial; however, in disadvantaged areas, out-migration was still the norm. These
authors note factors other than brain drain contribute to
population loss in rural communities and suggest that
communities actively improve job skills among residents,
increase wages, and elect strong leaders. Other studies
show how small rural towns attract retirees and vacationers. Shumway and Otterstrom (2001) found that rural
restructuring in the Mountain West has caused increased
concentration of migrations due to the attractive environmental and natural amenities now available for profit. No
studies were found that call for rural communities
increasing the numbers of impoverished families as a
response to population decline.
Increasingly, studies show the complexities and
uniqueness of rural poverty (Jensen, 2006; Brown and
Lichter, 2004; Snyder and McLaughlin, 2003). Researchers argue, and this study supports the arguments, that
policies to decrease concentrations of poverty in urban
areas cannot be cut and pasted into rural settings. For
example, Swaminathan and Findeis (2004) found the
increased workforce participation of former welfare
recipients was not uniform across both urban and rural
areas. They argued that implementing the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 (federal welfare reform) in rural counties did not
coincide with the rise in employment opportunities that
were experienced in urban areas. Thus, the decreased
welfare rolls that were attributed to increased employment
opportunities in the late 1990s were not found across high
poverty rural areas.
Project Goals and Objectives
This project was an exploratory ethnographic study that
examined the characteristics and forces, as well as the
experiences, that drove migrations in poor families; the
subsequent responses of those with longer ties to the
community; and the effects on local public policies and
access to social services.
Selection Process and Data Collection
The researchers used the families and organizations
already involved in the FLP to further investigate the
proposed research questions. Researchers recruited 17
migrant families and 12 long-term families.5 Fourteen of
the 17 migrant respondents were seen monthly throughout the study period. Each of the other three migrant
respondents was interviewed once during the study. The
12 long-term respondents were also interviewed once
during the course of the study. These families lived within
a mile of the migrant families and were selected by
snowball sampling.
Ethnographers also attended 16 community meetings
and conducted 14 informational interviews with county
agencies and organizations.
While 15 of the migrant respondents were African
American, it was not a primary goal of the study to
examine race. Future large-scale demographic studies of
low-income families migrating into the area would have
to be conducted to determine if race is a salient factor.
Since the families studied were not a random sample of
all low-income migrant families in the Cambria, Blair and
Huntingdon communities, they were not statistically
representative. Nonetheless, their experiences were
indicative of the challenges families faced and the
strategies employed to navigate the migration process.
Data Analysis
The primary data form used in the analyses was qualitative narratives. Data were analyzed at three levels: withincase level, cross-case level, and cross-site (county) level.
Analysis of data at the within-case level permitted a
detailed understanding of the experiences and views of a
particular group, such as the in-migrant group. Analysis at
the cross-case and cross-site level allowed for the comparison of experiences across families, agencies and geographic locations. Cross-case analysis within each of the
three counties helped to generalize the findings within
cases. Similarities in structures or processes across cases
demonstrated stronger support for the findings of the
within-case analysis.
4
The prison population of Smithfield State Correctional Institution, which opened in 1988, may be a factor attributing to the slow population
growth in Huntingdon County during this time period.
5
Each of the migrant families moved into one of the research counties no more than 18 months from the start of the research project. The longterm community members have at least two generations of family ties to one of the three counties.
Migration for Housing: Urban Families in Rural Living
3
Results
Profile of New Migrants
The findings in this study result from both within-case
and cross-case analyses. Within-case analyses were based
on examining all of the data on each family and determining what patterns emerged for each respondent. Cross-case
analyses then culled this information to determine what
patterns emerged across the sample. This section describes
the patterns that emerged in the data at both levels. By
focusing on the emergent patterns, this report details the
processes and intersections of relocation characteristics,
nuanced-behaviors, and meanings that respondents gave
to their lived experiences. Thus, the profile is substantively organized as opposed to creating separate profiles
for each respondent.
To unravel some of the nuances surrounding rural
poverty, researchers examined the experiences of families
around several domains. Each respondent was drawn to
the study area for a better quality of life. Of note, however,
is that none of the respondents reported being drawn into
the area for employment opportunities. In searching for a
better quality of life, housing was a major pull factor. How
did respondents come to find safe and affordable housing
in central Pennsylvania? Rumors in the community
circulated that public housing authorities and private real
estate developers were advertising ‘low-income Section 8
and public housing’ vacancies in large northeastern cities
such as Newark, NJ, Brooklyn, NY, Pittsburgh, PA and
Philadelphia, PA. Interviews with each of the public
housing directors across the three counties revealed no
such practice, as was the case with the private developer
who was interviewed. None of the 17 respondents observed any advertisements of low-income housing
opportunities in the cities from which they relocated.
Exclusive of the four respondents who were referred to the
transitional housing for battered women, most respondents found out about available and affordable housing in
the study area through their family and social networks. A
few were drawn to the area serendipitously.
While many families relocate because of better employment opportunities, this study demonstrates that better
housing opportunities are driving migrations. Once
housed, families seek out employment opportunities.
Respondents were asked to list and explain, in order of
importance to the respondent and her/his family, the
following factors: housing, work, health, safety, education
and other (respondent could fill in item or items not
included in the list). Housing, safety and work were the
three most prevalent relocation reasons.
Housing and Safety
Housing was the most prevalent reason given for those
choosing to relocate. Much of low-income housing
research focuses on availability, affordability, and quality
(Anderson et al., 2003; Conger, 1993; Currie and
Yelowitz, 2000; Einbinder, 1995; Gagne and Ferrer, 2006;
4
Harkness and Newman, 2005; Howell et al., 2005;
Hulchanski, 1995; Newman and Harkness, 2002; and
Yeung et al., 2002). For study respondents, all three of
these factors drew them into the study area. Because the
respondents were housed (i.e., were not homeless) in their
previous location, they were moving to an opportunity,
such as places where public and assisted housing options
were available, affordable, and in good condition. Their
decisions to migrate are understandable when comparing
the urban conditions from which they moved, where their
housing choices were few, the costs of housing were high,
and the quality of housing and neighborhoods was poor.
This last factor was significant for many respondents. It
was not only the quality of housing that was important,
but where the housing was located. Included in the
quality of housing is safety—both within and outside the
home. Safety was the second most prevalent reason
respondents gave for why they chose to leave the city.
Many of the respondents experienced high rates of
concentrated residential mobility over their lifetimes
while living in the city and, for all but five respondents,
this was the first time living outside an urban environment. This is important because the amenities and social
networks respondents found in the city were absent in
central Pennsylvania, creating unforeseen obstacles for
families.
Schafft’s (2006) study of hyper-mobility within impoverished rural New York communities demonstrates the
problems associated with frequent moves, especially in
the K-12 school system. Hyper-mobility often falls under
the radar screen of policy makers because families’
mobility is hard to capture using traditional census
measures and most studies focus on movement between
metro and nonmetro areas.
This study found that half of the respondents had
moved during the study period and several had made
plans on leaving the study area within the next year. The
effects of frequent mobility have major implications for
schools, housing authorities, welfare assistance offices,
census trackers and the socio-emotional development of
children and families.
Another reason respondents gave for relocating to the
study area was to secure a Section 8 voucher. According to
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), the purpose of the Section 8 program is to give
low income families, the disabled and the elderly increased opportunities to obtain safe and affordable
housing anywhere in the U.S. where a public housing
authority resides.
Five respondents said they moved to the study area, in
part, to obtain a Section 8 voucher; however each stated
that she was willing to live in the study area for a of
couple years to get a voucher while determining if the
area had a better quality of life before deciding to stay in
the area, return to the city, or move to a new town altogether. Each knew the waiting period to obtain a voucher
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania
in the city where they lived before relocating could take
up to 10 years or more. By relocating to the study area,
this process could be expedited. During the last interview
for the study, respondents were asked their future housing
plans. All five families (who reported Section 8 as a reason
for relocating) said they wanted to leave the area because
they perceived that the area was not racially tolerant of
African Americans. For those families who did not list
obtaining a housing voucher as a reason for relocating to
the study area, racial insensitivity was also a source of
tension that produced conflict.
This study found that families were committed to
establishing stable home environments amidst the
constraints of poverty. Many were proud to have a place
of their own, or wanted one, where they were responsible
for paying the bills, controlled who entered the home and
when, sought refuge and privacy, and built on family
traditions. Burton and Lawson Clark (2006) state “that the
ability to construct a homeplace as a site of resistance may
greatly improve the lives of families living in poverty.”
dent and her 2-year old son were enrolled in the voluntary
Family Express Early Head Start program sponsored by
the Huntingdon County Child and Adult Development
Corporation. The program, which operated three days a
week, housed the children on the lower level while
caregivers took GED classes or attended job training and
adult development workshops on the upper level. Three
other respondents were enrolled in the Single Point Of
Contact (SPOC) program, which is funded by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare but administered
locally. The purpose of the program is to provide lowincome individuals with the skills, training and services
needed to obtain employment. Two more respondents
worked for temporary agencies, which screen and hire
employees for businesses. The pool of applicants, however, is much greater than the need. Thus, if employees
miss work for a family emergency or cannot find reliable
transportation to get to work, the employee is quickly
replaced by another waiting in line. The consequences for
families are sporadic employment and breaks in public
assistance, such as TANF, food stamps, healthcare and
housing costs.
Work
Another barrier to employment for families was transFor many middle and working class families, work is the
reason for migration. These families relocate to begin new portation. Some assistance programs, such as SPOC,
Family Express and Head Start, provided transportation
jobs or anticipate finding employment quickly, then
begin the processes of securing housing, relocating other for families. The major concerns respondents had about
transportation ranged from respondents not having a
family members, enrolling children in schools, finding
childcare, setting up bank accounts, joining social clubs, driver’s license and difficulty in passing the driving exam
to expensive transportation costs, unreliable used cars and
etc. For families similar to those in this study, obtaining
quality, affordable housing is the primary driving force for dependence on others for transportation. For some
respondents, who had to depend on others (and pay for
mobility. Many are pulled from their residences because
their services) for transportation to and from work,
of eviction or landlord foreclosure, substandard housing,
flexibility, good planning and time management were
overcrowding, loss of employment, physical and mental
health concerns, high crime neighborhoods, domestic and essential. Arriving at work one hour before schedule or
staying one hour late to catch a ride home from a cosubstance abuse, and housing policy (such as HOPE VI
worker was not out of the ordinary for some respondents.
demolition and rehabilitation programs). For these
Also, shift work posed more barriers since buses typically
families, housing is primary. Once shelter has been
operate during peak working hours. Finally, respondents
secured, families then seek out other services.
in the Huntingdon sample voiced concerns about the
Once families have obtained quality, affordable housunavailability of public transportation including taxis,
ing, most actively begin looking for employment.
buses, or countywide carpools. With the constraints of
However, most found barriers to finding work, including
finding living wage employment, quality childcare, and
the lack of low-skilled employment opportunities, the
reliable transportation, it makes sense that families in
lack of temporary job placements, the lack of access to
these contexts secure housing first and then seek out
public and private transportation, perceived racial
employment.
disparities, and few childcare options for shift work. As
described earlier, most of the families worked or were
Advantages and Disadvantages of Migration
enrolled in an employment training program at some
point during the study period. Of the three who were not
Experiences: In-Migrant Perspectives
working, one was in college full-time, one had rental
For in-migrant families, there was some ambiguity
income and a third was a caregiver for an autistic family
surrounding their relocation to central Pennsylvania.
member. The challenge for these families was finding
Initially, respondents were optimistic about their chances
permanent, living wage employment with benefits, such
of securing better outcomes for themselves and their
as health insurance, vacation and sick leave, and retirechildren. More often than not, the shelter, safety, and
ment savings. One respondent worked for a company that peace many discussed morphed into feelings of distrust,
offered health benefits; however, the respondent declined angst, and uncertainty. Many talked of leaving the area as
coverage because it was too expensive. Another responsoon as possible; however, when faced with the decision
Migration for Housing: Urban Families in Rural Living
5
of where to go, many knew where they did not want to go,
and that was to the cities from which they came.
For example, while respondents repeatedly spoke of
negative experiences they encountered in the study area,
more than 70 percent of respondents said the percentage
of positive social interactions in the study area were 50
percent or greater. The most prevalent reason given for
this contradiction is that respondents did not fall into the
trap of intolerance that was demonstrated by some longstanding community members.
Each of the in-migrant experiences were complex and
demonstrated the social costs and benefits involved in
housing programs designed to give individuals the
freedom to choose where to live, which is the major goal
of Section 8.
The pros and cons of families moving from an urban
area with more employment opportunities but higher
costs of living to a more rural area with lower costs of
living but less employment opportunities were also
evident.
For example, one of the respondents, a single mother
with three young children, was a teacher’s assistant.
During the study, she began taking college classes in
business management. She received a Pell Grant to cover
80 percent of the costs of classes, leaving her with a
$2,000 tuition payment. Her monthly income totaled
$1,506, and her monthly expenses were $1,391.
The respondent’s wages from her temporary jobs places
her family of four well below the 2005 Federal Poverty
Guidelines. The public housing subsidy, which requires
the respondent to pay 30 percent of her income, is a major
resource that keeps the respondent and her children stably
housed. If the respondent’s temporary employment
remains stable, she has $115 of disposable income at the
end of the month. However, she will need to use her
disposable income to pay down her college tuition. This
is still a much better financial situation than the one she
had in her prior location, where she had to work 16 hours
per day to pay her $500 monthly rent. Here is an example
of a respondent who understands the value of higher
education and lives within her means.
Respondents in this study showed that low-income
families have the same dreams and expectations that
higher income families have. The major difference is the
means by which one is able to acquire such dreams. While
a middle class family can buy the flat screen television on
low-interest credit, poor families rely on the generosity of
family members and strangers and the high interest rentto-own outlets and pawn shops to lease a television. Many
low-income families are not aware of the excessive
interest charged by these companies.
Social Service Experiences and Needs of In-Migrants
Overall, respondents had good experiences with social
service agencies in which they came in contact. Respondents repeatedly were thankful for the number of agencies
6
that came to their assistance when they first arrived in the
study area. Faith-based organizations delivered furniture
and clothing, assistance offices helped file the necessary
paperwork to receive benefits, and neighbors offered
transportation to the grocery store and advice on community assets. Two of the four respondents living at the
transitional housing shelter did not have anything
positive to say about their experiences. Another respondent who lived at the shelter was featured in an article in
the local newspaper that showed the name and a photograph of the facility, which caused anxiety for the woman.
Her experiences when she first got to the shelter were
wonderful—the on-site case manager helped her get a job
and the facility met all of her needs. Soon after, however,
the case manager was fired, leaving no one for the woman
to rely on for professional assistance.
A concern that was repeated by many of the families
living in public housing and awaiting a Section 8 voucher
appeared to be that the housing authority was looking for
a reason not to grant a voucher to families and gave
infractions that seemed arbitrary.
For those respondents who came to the study area to
receive a Section 8 voucher, there was no contradiction in
their intent—they expected exactly what the Section 8
program promised—the choice to live wherever they
wanted to live. Conflicts arose when local housing
authorities and residents did not have the same expectations. Housing authorities expected to have enough funds
in their budgets to manage their sites and programs. This
was the biggest concern voiced in the 2005 Pennsylvania
Association of Housing and Redevelopment Agencies’
Annual Conference, which the researcher attended.
Should a tenant receive a voucher in a county and
transport the voucher to another county with a higher
rental rate, the monies to pay the difference are taken from
the former housing authority’s annual budget. For small
differences in rates, this is not a problem; however, for
those individuals moving to large urban areas with a small
rural housing authority voucher, one can see the apprehension rural authorities may have. That is, they will have
less vouchers to give out because of the extra monies used
to cover the higher housing costs in the city.
One response adopted by at least one housing authority
in the study area, which has also caused some community
conflict, was to adopt a local preference. Due to local
preference guidelines established by HUD, housing
authorities have discretion to implement a wide array of
eligibility criteria for Section 8 vouchers. The main
argument for proponents of local preference is the lack of
funding to help everyone in need. Newly arrived families
must establish at least one year of residency (usually by
moving into a public housing unit) before becoming
eligible for a Section 8 voucher. Tenants may contact the
authority at any time to verify their position on the list.
The average wait time for the study participants was about
one year.
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania
Long-Term Respondent Perspectives
The average age of the long-term respondents was 42 ½,
more than nine years older than the average age of the inmigrant group. These respondents were chosen because
they lived within a one-mile radius of one of the inmigrant homes, and they had long-term ties (at least two
generations) to the local community, thus allowing them
to offer their perspectives of social change over time.
Most lived in homes on the private market. While four
lived in publicly subsidized housing, at least one was
eligible for, but refused to accept, government assistance.
The stigma of receiving government “hand-outs” has been
discussed throughout the rural poverty literature. Four of
the long-term respondents described their employment as
stable (one was retired and lived comfortably on her
retirement income and investments). The others experienced fluctuations in their employment, similar to the
challenges described by the in-migrant respondents.
Respondents were asked to describe general changes in
the local community they have seen/experienced over the
last decade. Respondents were then asked about changing
demographics in their community to determine the extent
to which they were aware of individuals moving into the
community and what explanations they might give to
explain why individuals were moving into the area.
Respondents completed the interview with a discussion
on the future of the community.
A major theme that emerged from the long-term
respondent data surrounded race and the increases in the
number of minorities moving into the local area. Comments from the long-term respondents about race and
social change ranged from a highly vocalized rejection of
all minorities to acceptance of diversity as a fact of life.
In some cases, the long-term respondents were opposed
to the women’s transitional housing and were outspoken
about their concerns. Researchers have argued that
regardless of being victims of domestic abuse or mental
illness, which can sometimes feed into an addiction,
abused women are not trusted and often criminalized,
governed, discriminated against and placed under
surveillance by staff and sometimes the public (AntiDiscrimination Center of Metro New York, 2005;
Donnelly, 2005; Foucault, 1977; Foucault, 1991[1978];
Gordon, 1991; HUD-USER, 1999; Hunt, 1999; Melbin,
2003; Merry, 1999 and 2001; Pratt, 1999; Procacci,
1991[1978]; and Susser, 1999). For the study participants
who lived in the domestic abuse shelter, the
criminalization was compounded by racism.
In terms of class, long-term respondents were asked to
describe who was poor in their community. All of the inmigrant and most of the long-term families participating
in this study and the larger Family Life Project study
would be considered poor by the federal government
poverty guidelines; however, most of the long-term
respondents did not consider themselves poor based on
their families’ needs.
Conclusion
This study allowed the researchers to document the
movement of low-income families from urban areas to
rural Pennsylvania to find quality, affordable housing.
Overall, the research found that, contrary to much of the
migration literature, the respondents relocated for housing
opportunities rather than labor opportunities.
The research also shed light on how U.S. public
housing policy made at the federal level may be playing
out at the local level, and how the federal program
expectations may be presenting challenges for local
policymakers and small communities and their residents.
References
Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York, Inc. (2005). “Center Study Finds Significant Incidence of Discrimination against
Survivors of Domestic Violence.”
Brown, D. L. and K. L. Deavers (1989). “The Changing Context of Rural Economic Policy in the United States.” Research in Rural
Sociology and Development 4: 255-275.
Brown, J. B. and D. T. Lichter (2004). “Poverty, Welfare, and the Liveliehood Strategies of Nonmetropolitan Single Mothers.” Rural
Sociology 69(2): 282-301.
Burton, L.M. and S. Lawson Clark (2005). “Homeplace and Housing in the Lives of Low-Income Urban African American Families.”
In African American Family Life: Ecological and Cultural Diversity, eds. V. McLoyd, N. Hill and K. Dodge, pp. 166-188. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Donnelly, D.A., K.J. Cook, D. van Ausdale, and L. Foley. (2005). “White Privilege, Color Blindness, and Services to Battered
Women.” Violence Against Women 11(1):6-37.
Fitchen, J. M. (1995). “Spatial Redistribution of Poverty through Migration of Poor People to Depressed Rural Communities.” Rural
Sociology 60(2): 181-201.
Fitchen, J.M. (1994). “Residential Mobility among the Rural Poor.” Rural Sociology 59(3): 416-436.
Fitchen, J.M. (1991). Endangered Spaces, Enduring Places: Change, Identity, and Survival in Rural America. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. A. Sheridan, transl. New York: Random House.
Foucault, M. (1991[1978]). “Governmentality.” In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. C.G.G. Burchell and P. Miller, ed.
Pp. 87-104. Hemel Hempstead: Harvest Wheatsheaf.
(continued on next page)
Migration for Housing: Urban Families in Rural Living
7
Gordon, C. (1991). “Governmental Rationality: An Introduction.” In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. C.G.G. Burchell
and P. Miller, ed. Pp. 1-51. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Housing Assistance Council. (2002). Taking Stock: Rural People, Rural Poverty, and Housing at the Turn of the 21st Century.
Washington, D.C.: Housing Assistance Council.
HUD-USER. (1999). “Program Staff Perceptions of How Many Clients Need Each Service.” In Homelessness: Programs and the
People They Serve. Technical Report.
Hunt, A. (1999). Governing Morals: A Social History of Moral Regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jensen, L. (2006). “At the Razor’s Edge: Building Hope for America’s Rural Poor.” Rural Realities Vol. 1, Issue 1.
Jobes, P. C. (2000). Moving Nearer to Heaven: The Illusions and Disillusions of Migrants to Scenic Rural Places. Westport, CI,
Praeger.
Larson, J. (1994). “The Poor are Fleeing Cities, Too.” American Demographics 16(5): 20-21.
Maynard, L. J., T. W. Kelsey, et al. (1997). “Rural Migration: What Attracts New Residents to Non-Metropolitan Areas.” Journal of
the Community Development Society 28(1): 131-141.
Melbin, A., C.M. Sullivan, and D. Cain. (2003). ‘Transitional Supportive Housing Programs: Battered Women’s Perspectives and
Recommendations.” AFFILIA 18(4):445-460.
Merry, S.E. (1999). “Criminalization and Gender: The Changing Governance of Sexuality and Gender Violence in Hawai’i.” In
Governable Places: Readings on Governmentality and Crime Control. R. Smandych, ed. Pp. 75-101. Advances in Criminology.
Brookfield: Ashgate.
Merry, S.E. (2001). “Spatial Governmentalityand the New Urban Social Order: Controlling Gender Violence through Law.” American
Anthropologist 103(1):16-29.
Nadel, W. and S. Sagawa. (2002). America’s Forgotten Children: Child Poverty in Rural America (Report to Save the Children,
America’s Forgotten Children campaign). Washington D.C.: Save The Children.
Nord, M. and J. Cromartie. (1999). “Rural Areas Attract Young Families and College Graduates.” Rural Conditions and Trends 9(2):
28-34.
Nord, M. and J. Cromartie. (2000). “Migration in the Nonmetropolitan South.” Southern Rural Sociology 16(1): 175-205.
Pratt, J. (1999). “Governmentality, Neo-Liberalism and Dangerousness.” In Governable Places: Readings on Governmentality and
Crime Control. R. Smandych, ed. Pp. 133-161. Advances in Criminology. Brookfield: Ashgate.
Procacci, G. (1991[1978]). “Social Economy and the Government of Poverty.” In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality.
C.G.G. Burchell and P. Miller, ed. Pp. 151-168. Hemel Hempstead: Harvest Wheatsheaf.
Schafft, Kai (2006). “Poverty, Residential Mobility, and Student Transiency within a Rural New York School District.” Rural Sociology 71(2): 212-231.
Shumway, J. M. and S. M. Otterstrom (2001). “Spatial patterns of migration and income change in the Mountain West: the dominance
of service-based, amenity-rich counties.” The Professional Geographer 53: 492-502.
Snyder, A.R. and D.K. McLaughlin. (2003). “Female-headed Families and Poverty in Rural America.” Rural Sociology 69:127-149.
Susser, I. (1999). “Creating Family Forms: The Exclusion of Men and Teenage Boys from Families in the New York City Shelter
System, 1987-1991.” In Theorizing the City: The New Urban Anthropology Reader. S.M. Low, ed. Pp. 67-82. New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press.
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania Board of Directors
Senator John R. Gordner, Chairman
Representative Tina Pickett, Vice Chairman
Senator John Wozniak, Treasurer
Dr. Nancy Falvo, Clarion University, Secretary
Representative Tim Seip
Dr. Theodore R. Alter, Pennsylvania State University
Steve Crawford, Governor’s Representative
Dr. Stephan J. Goetz, Northeast Regional Center
for Rural Development
Dr. Keith T. Miller, Lock Haven University
Dr. Robert J. Pack, University of Pittsburgh
William Sturges, Governor’s Representative
8
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania
200 North Third Street, Suite 600
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Phone: (717) 787-9555
Fax: (717) 772-3587
www.ruralpa.org
1P0708– 200
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania